Changing the Educational Beliefs of Teachers through an Interdisciplinary Online Teaching Programme: Are Business Teachers Different from Teachers of other Disciplines?

Abstract

Due to larger class sizes in business education, a common assumption amongst business teachers is that using a student-centred approach is more difficult. However, an important development in business education is the increased learning possibilities brought by ICT that suggest a more individualised learning experience for students is possible. Nonetheless, many business teachers appear reluctant to embrace technology in the classroom. An online teacher training programme in a cross-institutional partnership was followed by 16 business teachers from three institutes, working with 49 teachers from other disciplines. Data were gathered in an explorative, quantitative manner using the Teacher Beliefs and Intentions questionnaire and TPACK questionnaire using a pre-post test design. The results indicate that business teachers are more persistent in their beliefs and intentions towards knowledge transmission, while teachers from other disciplines became more student-centred. Given that this intensive innovative training programme seemed to have limited impact, this implies that business schools may need to reconsider their professionalization activities for academic staff.

Keywords:

• business education
• technology enhanced learning
• professional development
• quantitative research
• TPACK

Introduction

Academic scholars in research-intensive business schools are under increased pressure to be productive, effective and cost-efficient members of society (Bok 2003, De Rond & Miller 2005, Adcroft et al. 2010). These pressures are increasing given recent and wide-spread government cuts in Europe. At the same time, there is increasing competition among academic scholars to excel on an international stage in publishing research in high-quality business and economics journals. That is, business scholars are expected to be both excellent researchers, who successfully apply for research grant-funding and excellent teachers who design effective learning experiences (De Rond & Miller 2005, Adcroft et al. 2010, Wilkins & Huisman 2012). Under these, often perceived as competing elements, business scholars are increasingly under pressure and the temptation to cut corners in teaching may seem to be an attractive solution to provide further space for research. (Note: in this paper, when referring to business teachers and scholars, we use the wide definition of business studies, that is economics, business, management, hospitality, econometrics, organisational studies, etc.)

At the same time, when business scholars are ‘interested’ in teaching and learning, a common argument raised by business teachers is that teaching using an innovative, student-centred approach is more difficult in business education (Gijselaers 1995, Mintzberg 2004). This argument is based on a belief that unique challenges confront business scholars in comparison to their academic peers in other disciplines. The most frequently cited is that given the popularity of business, management and economics programmes across the world (Mintzberg 2004, Van den Bosch 2008, Rienties & Townsend 2012, Wilkins & Huisman 2012), most business teachers teach in large classrooms, ranging from 50 to even a thousand students (Gallego & Casanueva 2009, Rienties et al. 2013c). At the same time, research has shown that in business schools there is a stronger diversity of students present in terms of cognition and mathematical skill (Tempelaar 2006), learning styles (Nijhuis et al. 2008), motivation and information and communications technology (ICT) affinity of students (Tempelaar et al. 2012a) and cultural backgrounds (De Vita 2001, Rienties et al. 2012a, Tempelaar et al. 2012b), which renders using a student-centred approach an even far greater challenge. For example, Rienties et al. (2012b) compared 117 blended and online course designs in 22 countries and found that business teachers designed and implemented substantially different module designs in comparison to other disciplines in order to facilitate a large and diverse group of students. As a result, many business teachers argue that teaching business students is more complex than teaching students who have specifically chosen a discipline because of a specific drive or passion (e.g. medicine, dance), or those who teach in a specialised areas where there are limited numbers of students.

A final point that may further complicate the teaching role for business teachers is that most graduates from business education enter a range of jobs in the professional sector. In addition to acquiring new theoretical business models, business students expect to obtain a range of generic business management skills (Treleaven & Voola 2008). Although research has indicated that many business students struggle to apply these generic business skills (Arts et al. 2006), and many business schools are criticised for not delivering employable graduates (Van den Bosch 2008, Gerken et al. 2012), business teachers have to attempt a difficult balance between providing (softer) employable (‘vocational’) skills and profound theoretical (‘academic’) discipline-specific knowledge (e.g. accounting, finance, mathematics, statistics). In other words, the pedagogical intent of business teachers may need to embrace both a developmental purpose (to extend the potential of a diverse range of students) and an academic purpose to ‘impart’ a widely established body of discipline-specific knowledge to achieve ‘subject mastery’ in (pre)defined professional/practitioner areas (Brockbank & McGill 2007).

So how can business teachers provide business students with a learning environment that helps them to strengthen soft skills, while at the same time provide them with a rigorous body of knowledge and expertise? Several researchers (De Vita 2001, Van den Bossche et al. 2004, Norton et al. 2005, Van den Bosch 2008, Rienties & Townsend 2012) argue that a possible answer may be to provide a more student-centred approach to learning and teaching. It is believed that business teachers who have a more student-centred approach to teaching are more likely to achieve conceptual change by designing instructional activities in which the students are active, while teachers who have a more teacher-centred approach are more likely to design instructional activities in which the teacher himself/herself is most active and by this being less effective.

Previous research has found that teachers adopting a more student-centred approach to teaching are more likely to stimulate business students to adopt a deep-approach rather than a surface-approach to their learning (Nijhuis et al. 2008). Furthermore, even in large classrooms of a thousand business students, recent research has shown that business teachers can implement a student-centred approach when supported by effective ICT. For example, Tempelaar and colleagues (Tempelaar 2006, Tempelaar et al. 2012a, Tempelaar et al. 2012b) have shown that by using an adaptive software program called ALEKS, business students can be given an individualised learning experience in business statistics that supports learning more appropriately aligned with their level of capability. In addition, Noteborn et al. (2012) showed how virtual worlds like Second Life could be used with over 250 business students working in small teams. They were able to effectively learn how to implement and manage a new brand through online working facilitated by teachers.

Given the powerful possibilities of student-centred learning and ICT in general (Wang & Hannafin 2005, Laurillard 2007, Kirschner & Erkens 2013) and in particular for business education, several researchers (Rienties & Townsend 2012, Rienties et al. 2012b) have suggested that business schools should provide adequate professional development, training and staff support for teachers in order to increase awareness of the interplay between technology, pedagogy and cognitive content related to, and supporting their discipline. However, research has shown that providing effective training and practice opportunities for teachers, so that they learn how to effectively redesign learning opportunities (McCarney 2004, Stes et al. 2010, Ebert-May et al. 2011), in particular through the incorporation of ICT (Lawless & Pellegrino 2007, Ziegenfuss & Lawler 2008, Alvarez et al. 2009, Kirschner & Erkens 2013), is not straightforward.

While a large number of studies have argued that formal training can enhance teachers’ understanding of their practice (Prosser et al. 2003, Postareff et al. 2007), no significant relationships were found with formal training in the study by Norton et al. (2005), which backs up previous research by Gibbs and Coffey (2004). Therefore, in line with previous research, Norton et al. (2005) argue that genuine development of teachers’ approaches to teaching comes from addressing their underlying conceptions of teaching and learning (Prosser & Trigwell 1999, Trigwell & Prosser 2004, Norton et al. 2005). The sparse research that is available relating to the effectiveness of teacher professionalisation programmes is mostly conducted at a university-wide level.

Given the possibilities offered through ICT to provide a rich learning experience to business students, business teachers need to be able to update their skills and expertise in a safe, powerful and cost-effective manner (Smith 2003, Laurillard 2007, Alvarez et al. 2009). Although researchers (Laurillard 2007, Lawless & Pellegrino 2007, Löfström & Nevgi 2008) have suggested that higher education institutions should provide adequate professional development and support for teachers to acquire ICT and pedagogical skills, most studies outside the business education domain that report on ICT training have focussed on measuring learning satisfaction of such training programmes, rather than addressing whether teachers have actually changed their beliefs and intentions towards student-centred learning and the use and integration of technology into practice (Lawless & Pellegrino 2007, Stes et al. 2010).

In sum, for the three reasons commonly raised in business education to stress the ‘unique’ nature of business education (i.e. teaching larger classes, more diversity in student populations, teaching both vocational and academic skills), in this explorative, quantitative study we will analyse whether business teachers indeed differ from other academics in terms of beliefs and intentions towards student-centred and teacher-centred approaches in their classrooms. In this convenience sample of 73 academics, 16 business teachers participated in an online professional development programme after an initial pre-test of their beliefs and intentions. Afterwards, we will investigate the effects of an online training programme that was aimed to effectively integrate ICT in business education and compare these effects (if any) with the results in other disciplines, as measured by a post-test after 12 weeks. To the best of our knowledge, no specific research has been conducted that relates specifically to consider whether business teachers can be effectively supported to develop learning in an interdisciplinary professional development programme.

Method

Setting

Seventy-three teachers from seven higher educational institutes in the Netherlands participated in an online professional development programme that aimed to support the integration of ICT for teaching and learning. The modules were designed to support the teaching practice of participating teachers from the perspective of teaching design as a whole, rather than to train lecturers how to use technology X, Y or Z (McCarney 2004, Lawless & Pellegrino 2007). The goal set for each teacher taking part in the MARCH^ET programme (Make Relevant Choices in Educational Technology programme) was to implement a redesign of a teaching module in their own teaching practice within six months of the training being completed. During this programme a case-based approach was followed in which every participant made a redesign of his/her own lessons.

Teachers met online in classrooms using web-videoconferencing and each participant was expected to attend four one-hour online videoconferences, once every 2–3 weeks. In between the online meetings, teachers were expected to work on a range of assignments and to discuss their experiences in asynchronous discussion forums. In this way, business teachers were able to work together with other teachers (some of whom were from a different discipline) and learn from each others’ experiences, but at a time and place that was chosen by them, which aimed to allow for greater flexibility. The training took 8–12 weeks to complete with a total time investment of 20–25 hours and could be followed independently from the other modules in this programme. More specific details about the modules and design principles can be found elsewhere (Rienties et al. 2013a, 2013b) or at www. marchet.nl.

Participants

Of the 73 initial participants, 16 (eight male, eight female) participants indicated that they primarily taught in business, economics, or management. In order to exactly balance the participants from other disciplines with those from business education in terms of gender and age, we removed eight older males from the sample. The average age of the 65 participants was 40.41 [standard deviation (SD) = 8.44] and 50% of the teachers were male. In order of frequency, teachers from the other disciplines were from science (13), arts and social sciences (nine), health (seven), mathematics (five), and law (three). Twelve other teachers taught across a range of disciplines. Of the 16 business teachers eight worked at one research-intensive business school, while the remainder were split across one of three teaching-intensive business schools. The 49 academics from other disciplines primarily worked in research-intensive institutes. All participants volunteered themselves for taking part in this professionalisation programme. Participants who successfully passed the module were given a certificate, which could be used as evidence of their continuing professional development. In contrast to common practices in (for example) the UK (Norton et al. 2010) no explicit compulsory attendance was required for probation. In order to guarantee anonymity of participants, we have removed any reference to identify the respective institute a participant was working in.

Instruments

Measurement 1. Pre- and post-test teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning

In order to measure the initial beliefs and attitudes of (business) teachers towards student-centred and teacher-centred learning, the Teacher Beliefs and Intentions (TBI) instrument of Norton et al. (2005) was used. Based upon an adjusted version of Gow and Kember’s (1993) approaches to teaching inventory, Norton et al. (2005) validated the TBI instrument amongst 556 respondents from four UK universities across three broad academic disciplines (arts, science and social science). In the questionnaire, a distinction is made between learning facilitation and knowledge transmission and aims to explore a teachers beliefs and their intentions, examining the level of alignment. Within learning facilitation, five factors are identified, namely: problem solving, interactive education, supportive education, pastoral care, and motivating students. For knowledge transmission three factors are identified, namely: professional development for jobs, imparting information, and knowledge of subject. The final version of the instrument devised by Norton et al. (2005) consists of 32 questions. For this research, two questions on the use of media were replaced by more specific questions from the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) questionnaire (see later).

Measurement 2. Pre- and post-test TPACK

Mishra and Koehler (2006) designed the TPACK model with the aim of establishing how successful learning using ICT had been. The authors showed that learning was most effective when teachers have appropriate awareness of the complex interplay between pedagogy, technology and discipline specific knowledge. The TPACK questionnaire aims to measure whether teachers are able to effectively implement and integrate ICT into their teaching (Rienties et al. 2013a, 2013b). The questionnaire focuses on the five key elements in the MARCH^ET programme described earlier, namely: prior expertise with ICT; expertise in teaching in collaborative learning settings; pedagogical content knowledge (PCK); technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK); and technological content knowledge (TCK). Finally, by aggregating the five categories, an integrated TPACK score is derived. Cronbach alphas ranged between 0.64 and 0.81.

Data analysis

Sixty (92%) participants filled in the pre-test TBI and TPACK. Of the 32 (49%) participants who successfully completed the module, 27 participants filled in the post-test questionnaire, while only five out of 33 participants who dropped out completed the post-test questionnaire, despite two individualised email reminders and telephone calls. All eight participants from the research-intensive business school passed the online training module, while none of the participants from the three teaching-intensive business schools passed.

Results

Initial teacher beliefs and intentions towards student-centred learning

The results of the pre-test TBI showed that business teachers have strong beliefs towards knowledge transmission in particular towards training for jobs. In Table 1, the initial teacher beliefs and intentions of business teachers and other discipline teachers towards learning facilitation and knowledge transmission measured at the beginning of the online professional development programme are illustrated. In comparison with teachers in other disciplines, significant differences were found in beliefs towards knowledge transmission. Also the intentions of business teachers towards knowledge transmission were (on average) higher than their peers from other disciplines, although this was not significant at a 5% level.

Table 1 Initial teacher beliefs and intentions of business teachers versus others.

	Other disciplines		Business teachers
	M	SD	M	SD	t-Test
Beliefs towards learning facilitation	4.09	0.44	3.94	0.31	−1.290
Beliefs towards knowledge transmission	3.56	0.49	3.84	0.34	2.141*
Intentions towards learning facilitation	3.90	0.40	3.85	0.25	−0.397
Intentions towards knowledge transmission	3.76	0.39	3.90	0.27	1.341

Independent sample t-test (two-sided) (n other disciplines = 46, n business = 16).

* Coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level.

Follow-up separate t-tests analyses (not illustrated) of the 18 (separate) scales indicate significant differences amongst business teachers versus teachers from other disciplines in beliefs towards stronger training for jobs (t = 2.137, p < 0.05), as well as marginally significant differences in terms of beliefs towards lower pastoral care (t = −1.795, p < 0.10), and intentions towards stronger knowledge transmission (t = 1.635, p < 0.10). In sum, the results indicate that business teachers’ initial beliefs and intentions were more geared towards knowledge transmission of their expertise, while teachers from other disciplines were relatively more focussed towards a teaching approach that encouraged student-centred learning.

Effects of training on teacher beliefs and intentions

When comparing initial TBI scores with those gathered after 12 weeks for 34 respondents who completed both pre- and post-test, significant differences were found with respect to a lower intention towards knowledge transmission (t = −3.027, p < 0.05). The results indicate that participants were less convinced about a teaching style focussed primarily on knowledge transmission and intended to design modules less focussed on teacher-centred learning. However, participants did not become more student-centred. Follow-up separate t-tests analyses of the 18 scales found significant differences in beliefs towards less imparting of knowledge (t = −2.582, p < 0.05), as well as in intentions towards more motivation of students (t = 2.196, p < 0.05), and marginally lower intentions towards problem-solving (t = −1.875, p < 0.10). In sum, we conclude that teachers did not become more student-centred as a result of the training, although teachers beliefs towards knowledge transmission had declined significantly, which indicates a move away from teacher-centred learning.

In Table 2, the change in teacher beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and knowledge transmission measured for the seven business teachers (six from research-intensive, one from teaching-intensive) and 27 teachers from other disciplines at the beginning and end of the module are illustrated. Given that this represents only a limited number of business teachers who completed both the pre- and post-test, we caution the readers against generalising these findings. Although none of the changes were significant at a 5% confidence interval, thereby providing no support for the notion that business teachers react differently in comparison with non-business teachers to professional development, two interesting patterns do seem to emerge.

Table 2 Change in teacher beliefs and intentions of business teachers versus others.

	Other disciplines		Business teachers
M	SD	M	SD	t-Test
Δ Beliefs towards learning facilitation	−0.09	0.40	−0.05	0.49	0.194
Δ Beliefs towards knowledge transmission	−0.23	0.37	−0.02	0.30	1.364
Δ Intentions towards learning facilitation	0.02	0.34	0.04	0.33	0.162
Δ Intentions towards knowledge transmission	−0.12	0.40	0.10	0.29	1.367

Independent sample t-test (two-sided) (n other disciplines = 27, n business = 7).

* Coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level.

First of all, the SDs for all values were higher than the mean (M) scores, indicating that some participants became stronger in their beliefs and intentions, while other participants were less convinced about a student-centred or teacher-centred approach. This seems to indicate that the effects of training are not linear, but follow a more volatile, dynamic non-linear pattern, as indicated by recent research (Stes et al. 2010, Ebert-May et al. 2011). Second, although business teachers had stronger initial beliefs towards knowledge transmission, after the training it was primarily the teachers from other disciplines that were less convinced about their beliefs and intentions towards knowledge transmission. In fact, while teachers from other disciplines reduced their intentions towards knowledge transmission, the business teachers were (even) more convinced about their intentions towards knowledge transmission. Figure 1 provides a visual illustration of this pattern, whereby we illustrate learning facilitation as a ratio of knowledge transmission. While teachers from other disciplines over time developed relatively stronger beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and student-centred learning during the professional development programme, business teachers’ beliefs remained stable, or even became more focussed on knowledge transmission.

Figure 1 Pre- and post-test of ratio learning facilitation/knowledge transmission. Note: As this figure uses ratio of learning facilitation divided by knowledge transmission, a score close to one indicates that teachers balance learning facilitation and knowledge transmission to a similar level. If the score is above one, teachers focus relatively more on learning facilitation, while a score below one indicates that teachers focus relatively more on knowledge transmission.

Effects of training in terms of technology, pedagogy and content knowledge

At the start of the training, taking a cut-off value of 3.0 for the TPACK instrument, 59% of the business participants and 75% of the other discipline participants indicated that they did not actively use ICT in their current teaching practice. In Table 3, TPACK of participants in business education and other disciplines in the pre-test are illustrated. All TPACK scores for business teachers were higher than those for academics from other disciplines, although only expertise with teaching in collaborative learning was significant at a 5% confidence interval. The results indicate that on average business teachers had stronger (perceived) technological skills and collaborative learning experience than peers in other disciplines, although their overall TPACK score was not significantly higher.

Table 3 Pre-test of TPACK of business teachers versus others.

	Other disciplines	Business teachers
	M	SD	M	SD	t-Test
Prior expertise with ICT	2.97	0.67	3.05	0.65	0.415
Expertise in teaching in collaborative learning	3.26	0.92	3.78	0.86	1.977*
Pedagogical and content knowledge	3.87	0.88	4.13	0.81	1.017
Technological pedagogical knowledge	3.35	0.72	3.70	0.59	1.751
Technological content knowledge	3.34	0.71	3.67	0.75	1.530
TPACK	2.61	0.65	2.35	0.52	−1.417

Independent sample t-test (two-sided) (n other disciplines = 46, n business = 16).

* Coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level.

After completing the training programme, participants were in general more positive about their ICT skills (t = 1.965, p < 0.10) and overall TPACK skills (t = 3.977, p < 0.05) in comparison to their initial response. In Table 4, the changed TPACK scores of business education and other disciplines are illustrated. Similar to our findings reported earlier, the SDs values are in general larger than the M scores, indicating that some participants were significantly more positive about their (perceived) TPACK skills, while others indicated that they were less convinced about their TPACK skills. Business teachers who completed both the pre- and post-test were significantly less positive about their expertise in collaborative learning in comparison to teachers from other disciplines. Furthermore, business teachers were more negative about their technological pedagogical knowledge and technological content knowledge towards the end of the training. Nonetheless, both business teachers and teachers from other disciplines were more positive about their overall TPACK skills.

Table 4 Change of TPACK from pre- to post-testing.

	Other disciplines	Business teachers
	M	SD	M	SD	t-Test
Δ Prior expertise with ICT	0.17	0.62	0.32	0.49	0.594
Δ Expertise in teaching in collaborative learning	0.11	0.70	−0.57	0.93	−2.153*
Δ Pedagogical and content knowledge	0.07	1.00	0.14	0.38	0.178
Δ Technological pedagogical knowledge	0.26	0.80	−0.05	0.40	−0.982
Δ Technological content knowledge	0.22	0.52	−0.10	0.53	−1.414
Δ TPACK	0.47	0.79	0.81	0.74	1.028

Independent sample t-test (two-sided) (n other disciplines = 27, n business = 7).

* Coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level.

Discussion and conclusion

A common argument raised by business teachers is that using a student-centred approach is more difficult in business education, due to larger classroom sizes, greater diversity in student populations in terms of cultural backgrounds, motivation and learning styles, and the inherent tension of teaching discipline-specific knowledge as well as providing employable graduate skills. This paper is, in our opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the first to address whether business teachers have different beliefs and intentions towards student-centred learning and teaching in comparison to academics from other disciplines. Furthermore, we provide a unique insight into how attitudes towards student-centred learning of business teachers can be engaged due to an online professionalisation programme by comparing how business teachers’ beliefs and intentions and TPACK skills have (not) changed over time.

With respect to the first research question of whether business teachers differed from their peers in other disciplines in terms of their approaches to teaching and learning, we found that business teachers had significantly stronger beliefs (and intentions) towards knowledge transmission, in particular to training for jobs. These findings highlight the delicate balance that business teachers have to make in their daily practice. On the one hand, they have to ensure that business graduates are able to develop sufficient generic business skills, such as critical thinking (Treleaven & Voola 2008), self-determination and independent learning (Tempelaar et al. 2012b), communication skills (Gerken et al. 2012), leadership skills, empathy and charisma (Mintzberg 2004). On the other hand, business teachers are pressed by external bodies, such as Quality Assurance Associations, as well as internal structures within the institute (Kinchin et al. 2008) to focus primarily on providing sufficient breadth and depth of content knowledge specific to the discipline.

An interesting finding that needs more explanation is the result that suggests business teachers are less concerned about providing pastoral care in comparison to their peers in other disciplines. Although we did not measure empathy and care of teachers directly, it may be hard to find intuitive reasons why business teachers should have less inert empathy and interest over their students than peers from other disciplines. Perhaps the fact that business teachers are commonly teaching in large classrooms with hundreds of students at the same time may explain why care for an individual student is less pronounced, although we have to be careful in over-interpreting this finding given the relatively low marginal significant coefficients.

With respect to the second research question, the professional training programme did not lead to a change in business teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards more student-centred learning. Although significant differences were found with respect to lower intentions in knowledge transmission when looking at all participants (i.e. business teachers and teachers from other disciplines) who completed pre- and post-test, indicating that participants were less convinced about the appropriateness of a teaching style focussed primarily on knowledge transmission, the seven business teachers actually stood out against this trend. It would therefore appear that they remained comfortable with developing a module based primarily on a teacher-centred learning approach. We again remind the readers that this result should be treated with caution, given the low number of respondents.

One may wonder why business teachers maintained their relatively stronger teacher-centred beliefs throughout the training programme, while teachers from other disciplines became more student-centred. Postareff et al. (2007) have found that triggering changes in teachers’ attitudes towards student-centred learning takes time. That is, longitudinal analyses of a range of face-to-face training programs in Finland that differed based upon the duration of the programme showed that teachers participating in a short programme of less than 12 weeks only marginally changed their attitudes towards teaching and learning. Furthermore, given that most participants had 10 or more years’ experience in teaching, Marsh (2007) found that changing (senior) teachers’ attitudes towards student-centred learning is an even more difficult, long and cumbersome process. In particular in a business school environment, where teachers have to teach hundreds of students at the same time, applying a more student-centred approach may be very difficult to achieve (despite following a training programme that may be effective). Finally, to affect the change explained here may require a shift in the underpinning values that help to define the actions an individual takes (Lygo-Baker 2006). This is thought to be the most difficult change to facilitate and therefore during the relatively short period between the pre- and post-test the shift was unlikely to have had an opportunity to become recognisable to the participants, or open to articulation through the measure used.

With respect to the technological, pedagogical, content specific knowledge and skills, initially business teachers were on average more positive about their ICT skills than peers from different disciplines. We found that all TPACK scores for the post-test were higher than the pre-test. Technological pedagogical knowledge and the overall TPACK score were significantly higher after teachers had completed the programme. However, at the end of the training business teachers were less convinced about their technological pedagogical knowledge and technological content knowledge. A possible explanation for this is that although business teachers were in general more positive about their initial ICT skills, when working with other teachers in an innovative online environment, they may have become aware of the complexities of teaching and learning with more advanced learning technologies than they were familiar with in their classroom (Mishra & Koehler 2006, Löfström & Nevgi 2008, Alvarez et al. 2009). New technologies may lead to anxiety amongst some staff (McCarney 2004, Ziegenfuss & Lawler 2008), and may push teachers outside their own comfort zone.

An interesting finding that deserves more exploration is that both disciplinary and institutional differences substantially influenced whether participants successfully completed a module or not. All eight participants from the research-intensive business school passed the online training programme, while none of participants from the three teaching-intensive business schools succeeded. One possible explanation is that teachers in teaching-intensive business schools are more likely to already have substantial knowledge and expertise with pedagogical design and technology, as their roles are primarily focussed on teaching, providing pastoral care and administration. In contrast, most teachers participating from the research-intensive business school and their peers in the three other institutes were primarily judged and promoted based on their research profile (Kinchin et al. 2008). An alternative explanation that needs further empirical verification is that business teachers from research-intensive business schools may have felt more comfortable working in groups with peers from other research-intensive institutes, as these academics all have similar pressures to perform in academia. In other words, there was a greater sense of a shared identity, or familiar community of practice (Wenger 1998). Perhaps the participants from the teaching-intensive institutes, who were a minority in the overall sample, had less common ground to work within.

Limitations and future research

A crucial limitation of our findings is that our measure of impact was based upon self-reported measurements of teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and knowledge transmission (Stes et al. 2010). A known problem with self-reported measurements is that participants who complete an intervention are in general more optimistic about their (perceived) change than those who fail to complete an intervention (Ebert-May et al. 2011). Given that we did not randomise academics into a training and non-training condition, it would be impossible to determine whether the teachers would have changed even without teacher training.

A second obvious limitation is that we only have a limited sample of teachers from business education. While educational psychology research on student-learning typically uses large sample sizes of 200+ students, most research conducted within teacher education is naturally limited by the restricted number of participants who follow professionalisation programmes (Stes et al. 2010). As such, the research relates to a more limited number and is indicative rather than generalisable.

A third limitation is our quantitative pre-post design, with no explicit triangulation of the quantitative findings with qualitative approaches, such as interviews, semi-structured focus groups, reflective logs, or document analyses. Although eight out of 73 participants were interviewed three months after completion of the programme, only two participants were from business education, and only from the research-intensive university. Irrespective of the fact that the focus of the interviews was on the (perceived) quality of the programme and its impact on students, drawing conclusions on such a small, unrepresentative sample would be inappropriate.

Preliminary findings in face-to-face professional development by Ebert-May et al. (2011) and Stes et al. (2011) seems to indicate that even if teachers are more positive about their (perceived) student-centred orientation and pedagogical skills, in practice students do not notice any difference to the teaching they experience. Marsh (2007) argues that teachers only change their teaching practice when they critically think about their current practice. The challenge is often that without additional support to develop appropriate questions about practice, teachers do not know the options that there may be. By putting teachers from different disciplines and institutes together in an authentic online environment in MARCH^ET, and by jointly redesigning and critically reflecting upon their module designs through this interdisciplinary approach, we think that a first step has been made for these (senior) business teachers that may help them to rethink and (re)consider how technology and pedagogy can be effectively integrated into their teaching practice. Although our findings seem to indicate that achieving this with (some) business teachers is a challenge, we believe that, with the right support and encouragement from peers, teacher-centred business teachers will change as well. Such change is of course based on the current assumption that a student-centred approach is of greater benefit to learning and can be facilitated by ICT even in large groups of students. If this is accepted it challenges us to find ways to enable this to occur in our future design of professionalisation of business teachers learning.

In order to develop this work further it would be useful to repeat the work with a larger cohort, in different (international) contexts, and to extend the time over which the professional development takes place to see if, as anticipated, change takes longer to come through into practice. The work suggests that if we are to develop those working with large cohorts in business education there is a need to consider how to break down a socialisation that may exist which suggests that learning through transmission can remain the dominant philosophy.

Acknowledgements

This article was written in the context of the MARCH^ET project that is funded by the SURF Foundation.